Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quality of Evidence to Compare Outcomes of Open and Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy

  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) has gained widespread acceptance in the treatment of prostate cancer. While it increasingly is becoming the surgical approach of choice in many centers, limited data exist directly comparing it to radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). This review examines the evidence comparing RALP to RRP. The outcomes evaluated are arranged into perioperative, oncologic, and functional outcomes. Of the 21 publications meeting our selection criteria, Level II, III, and IV evidence were found in 9, 1, and 11 articles, respectively. Overall, RALP was associated with lower blood loss, transfusion rates, length of stay, and higher cost when compared to RRP. Definitive conclusions regarding complications and oncologic and functional outcomes are not yet possible, and will require longer-term follow-up and well-designed randomized controlled trials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, et al. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60:277–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Yuh BE, Hussain A, Chandrasekhar R, et al. Comparative analysis of global practice patterns in urologic robot-assisted surgery. J Endourol. 2010;24:1637–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ficarra V, Novara G, Fracalanza S, et al. A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution. BJU Int. 2009;104:534–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. •• Kang DC, Hardee MJ, Fesperman SF et al. Low quality of evidence for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: results of a systematic review of the published literature. Eur Urol 2010, 57: 930–937. This comprehensive review of RALP notes that the RALP literature is limited to observational studies of mostly low quality.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine—levels of evidence. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine web site. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025.

  6. Gainsburg DM, Wax D, Reich DL, et al. Intraoperative management of robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy. JSLS. 2010;14:1–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kordan Y, Barocas DA, Altamar HO, et al. Comparison of transfusion requirements between open and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010;106:1036–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rocco B, Matei DV, Melegari S, et al. Robotic vs open prostatectomy in a laparoscopically naive centre: a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int. 2009;104:991–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Truesdale MD, Lee DJ, Cheetham PJ, et al. Assessment of lymph node yield after pelvic lymph node dissection in men with prostate cancer: a comparison between robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy in the modern era. J Endourol. 2010;24:1055–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bolenz C, Gupta A, Hotze T, et al. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2010;57:453–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Breyer BN, Davis CB, Cowan JE, et al. Incidence of bladder neck contracture after robot-assisted laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010;106:1734–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Carlsson S, Nilsson AE, Schumacher MC, et al. Surgery-related complications in 1253 robot-assisted and 485 open retropubic radical prostatectomies at the Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden. Urology. 2010;75:1092–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Di Pierro GB, Baumeister P, Stucki P et al. A prospective trial comparing consecutive series of open retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a centre with a limited caseload. Eur Urol 2010, [Epub ahead of print].

  14. •• Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. Jama 2009, 302: 1557–1564. This analysis of SEER-Medicare data indicates that MIRP is associated with fewer strictures and miscellaneous complications compared to RRP, but more genitourinary complications, erectile dysfunction, and incontinence.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Krambeck AE, DiMarco DS, Rangel LJ, et al. Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques. BJU Int. 2009;103:448–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lo KL, Ng CF, Lam CN, et al. Short-term outcome of patients with robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: for localised carcinoma of prostate. Hong Kong Med J. 2010;16:31–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Choi WW, Gu X, Lipsitz SR et al. The effect of minimally invasive and open radical prostatectomy surgeon volume. Urol Oncol 2010, [Epub ahead of print].

  18. Bolenz C, Gupta A, Hotze T, et al. The influence of body mass index on the cost of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2010;106:1188–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lotan Y, Bolenz C, Gupta A, et al. The effect of the approach to radical prostatectomy on the profitability of hospitals and surgeons. BJU Int. 2010;105:1531–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lowrance WT, Elkin EB, Jacks LM, et al. Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer surgical treatments: a population based analysis of postoperative outcomes. J Urol. 2010;183:1366–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, et al. Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology. 2002;60:864–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ahlering TE, Woo D, Eichel L, et al. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon’s outcomes. Urology. 2004;63:819–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pfitzenmaier J, Pahernik S, Tremmel T, et al. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: do they have an impact on biochemical or clinical progression? BJU Int. 2008;102:1413–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int. 2003;92:205–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Smith Jr JA, Chan RC, Chang SS, et al. A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2007;178:2385–9. discussion 2389–2390.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol. 2007;51:648–57. discussion 657–648.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Parsons JK, Bennett JL. Outcomes of retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Urology. 2008;72:412–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Fracalanza S, Ficarra V, Cavalleri S, et al. Is robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy less invasive than retropubic radical prostatectomy? Results from a prospective, unrandomized, comparative study. BJU Int. 2008;101:1145–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Williams SB, Chen MH, D’Amico AV, et al. Radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: likelihood of positive surgical margin(s). Urology. 2010;76:1097–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Loeb S, Epstein JI, Ross AE, et al. Benign prostate glands at the bladder neck margin in robotic vs open radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010;105:1446–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Barocas DA, Salem S, Kordan Y, et al. Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: comparison of short-term biochemical recurrence-free survival. J Urol. 2010;183:990–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Joslyn SA, Konety BR. Impact of extent of lymphadenectomy on survival after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Urology. 2006;68:121–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Allaf ME, Palapattu GS, Trock BJ, et al. Anatomical extent of lymph node dissection: impact on men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004;172:1840–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, et al. Critical assessment of ideal nodal yield at pelvic lymphadenectomy to accurately diagnose prostate cancer nodal metastasis in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 2007;69:147–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Cooperberg MR, Kane CJ, Cowan JE, et al. Adequacy of lymphadenectomy among men undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010;105:88–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lallas CD, Pe ML, Thumar AB et al. Comparison of lymph node yield in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy with that in open radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int 2010, [Epub ahead of print].

  37. Coelho RF, Rocco B, Patel MB, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a critical review of outcomes reported by high-volume centers. J Endourol. 2010;24:2003–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Malcolm JB, Fabrizio MD, Barone BB, et al. Quality of life after open or robotic prostatectomy, cryoablation or brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2010;183:1822–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Freedland SJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, et al. Time to prostate specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy and risk of prostate cancer specific mortality. J Urol. 2006;176:1404–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Vickers AJ, Bianco FJ, Serio AM, et al. The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:1171–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Bajammal S, Dahm P, Scarpero HM, et al. How to use an article about therapy. J Urol. 2008;180:1904–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Tseng TY, Breau RH, Fesperman SF, et al. Evaluating the evidence: the methodological and reporting quality of comparative observational studies of surgical interventions in urological publications. BJU Int. 2009;103:1026–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

No potential conflicts of interests relevant to this article were reported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, MMC 394, 420 Delaware Street Southeast, Minneapolis, MN, 55403, USA

    Branden Duffey, Briony Varda & Badrinath Konety

Authors
  1. Branden Duffey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Briony Varda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Badrinath Konety
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Badrinath Konety.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Duffey, B., Varda, B. & Konety, B. Quality of Evidence to Compare Outcomes of Open and Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy. Curr Urol Rep 12, 229–236 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-011-0180-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-011-0180-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation